Judge Philosophies
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Charles Kincy - Bellevue
<p>~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business.</p> <p>If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more.</p> <p>Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds.</p> <p>(1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS.</p> <p>You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress.</p> <p>(1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart.</p> <p>(1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0).</p> <p>(1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT.</p> <p>Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T.</p> <p>(2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech.</p> <p>(3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better.</p> <p>(4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it.</p> <p>(5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption.</p> <p>(6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts.</p> <p>(6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that.</p> <p>(6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight.</p> <p>(6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants.</p> <p>(7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought.</p> <p>(8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash.</p> <p>(9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October).</p> <p>(10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?</p> <p>Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.</p> <p> </p>
Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia
<p>Dr. Dan Schabot</p> <p>Lower Columbia College</p> <p>Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT )</p> <p>Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)</p> <p> </p> <p>General Philosophy:</p> <p>Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.</p> <p> </p> <p>Specifics:</p> <p>Affirmative teams: At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution. You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.</p> <p> </p> <p>Negative Teams: I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own. Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me. Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.</p> <p> </p> <p>Speed and Presentation: If you feel the need to go fast that is fine. However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless. Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded. </p> <p> </p> <p>RFD: My preferences are listed above. I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round. </p>
Jennie Jackson - RCC
n/a
Jim Hanson - Bellevue
<p>~~Jim Hanson<br /> Executive Director, Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate<br /> Parli Judging Philosophy</p> <p>I began judging in 1980 (I’m an old man!)</p> <p>My default is to weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative advocacy versus those of the competing negative advocacy.</p> <p>STYLE ISSUES<br /> 1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning.<br /> 2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the MO, LOR and PMR.<br /> 3. Please extend arguments with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer).<br /> 4. I dislike a) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”); b) “They are stupid” comments; c) Personal attacks on opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss.<br /> 5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one line argument in the LOC that turns into several minutes of additional links and impacts in the MO/LOR. I am lenient about new arguments until the PMR. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was so critical.</p> <p>THE MO-LOR BLOCK</p> <p>I will follow the rules of the tournament however these are my thoughts . . .<br /> 1. If you are going to debate line by line at high rates of speed, then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the PMR. If so, I support MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 3 to 4 key answers on each position.<br /> 2. If you want to run old style (and I like that), then the LOR should have clear voting issues “Our first voting issue is . . .” DO NOT GO POINT BY POINT ON THE FLOW repeating the MO. And, you MUST WEIGH AND COMPARE LIKELIHOOD OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS.<br /> 3. If you want to argue splitting the block is abusive—you have an uphill battle unless the tournament rules state splitting the block is not permitted but do so by presenting your argument in the MG or via a POI during the MO which lists off the reasons you want to go for.<br /> 4. Why I think the MO and LOR should split the block: 1) the MO has to race too fast with blippy arguments to cover everything; it ruins the quality of argumentation in the debate; 2) the LOR usually repeats the MO. I already heard it; 3) What am I supposed to vote on? Only what the LOR says? Can I vote on a specific MO answer that the PMR didn’t respond to but wasn’t directly in the LOR? I honestly don’t get it—you want me to vote line by line but with the split—I feel like I am voting on MO arguments that weren’t extended or I ignore them even though I found them persuasive and the PMR didn’t answer/had bad answers. (these concerns do not apply if the opp debates traditional style)</p> <p>TOPICALITY AND THEORY<br /> 1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan”/"we support the resolution from this perspective eg transgender, race, gender remembering that the topic asks us what we should do" types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical.<br /> 2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care).<br /> 3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other.<br /> 4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative.<br /> 5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated explicitly in the text of the plan.<br /> 6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means.<br /> 7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. the topic is "the usfg should pressure china" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence and/or intrinsic as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan as reconceived in the perm is probably also not t).<br /> 8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan or EU Counterplan.<br /> 9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such cplans.<br /> 10. Object Fiat: I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should typically be ready to defend US action but there's a debatable limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms.<br /> 11. Multiplank counterplan conditionality: I believe kicking out of parts of your counterplan in the MO but still advocating other parts is severance and creates a grossly unfair debate.</p> <p>DISADS<br /> Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disad.</p> <p>KRITIKS<br /> Overall, I'm good on kritiks especially for the neg in parli debate where I find most gov answers not so compelling. I'm not a big fan of project/ignore the topic kritik arguments (as noted above in topicality) though I try to keep an open mind. That said, I have some key points that are important to winning/answering kritiks:<br /> • Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms.<br /> • I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the LOC. If it isn’t, I give the PMR tons-o-latitude.<br /> • I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter.<br /> • Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Teams: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts.<br /> • “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc.<br /> • Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments.<br /> • Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm alters the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik.<br /> • "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count.<br /> • Negatives that run performativity kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the LOC (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the block, I let the PMR make new responses). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative.</p>
Justice Cripps Peterson - RCC
n/a
Leah Moore - Lower Columbia
Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC
n/a
Phil LePoidevin - MHCC
Richie Laursen - Clark CC
n/a
Ryan Rhoades - MHCC
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Sonya Bristlin - RCC
n/a
david dickinson - Snow
n/a